Bill the Stateless

Yisrael Medad of My Right Word has a post about the American government’s attitude toward children born in the “Occupied Territories.” Here are some of the facts he includes from a conversation with American consular services and the Internet:

If a child is born in the West Bank, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians, place of birth on the U.S. passport is either the city (Efrat, Ramallah, etc.) or the area – the West Bank in that case.

a. As a result of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Government of Israel currently occupies and administers the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. U.S. policy recognizes that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are territories whose final status must be determined by negotiations.
b. Birth in the Golan Heights: The birthplace that should appear on passports whose bearers were born in the Golan Heights is SYRIA.
c. Birth in the West Bank or in the No Man’s Lands between the West Bank and Israel: The birthplace for people born in the West Bank or in the No Man’s Lands between the West Bank and Israel is WEST BANK; Those persons born before May, 1948 in the area known as the West Bank may have PALESTINE listed as an alternate entry. Those born in 1948 or later may have their city of birth as an alternate entry. Persons born in the West Bank in 1948 or later may not have Palestine transcribed as an alternate entry.
d. Birth in the Gaza Strip: The birthplace for people born in the Gaza Strip, is GAZA STRIP. PALESTINE is the alternate acceptable entry provided the applicant was born before 1948.
e. Birthplace in Israel: Write ISRAEL as the place of birth in the passport if and only if the applicant was born in Israel itself (this does not include the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, the West Bank or the No Mans Lands between the West Bank and Israel). Do not enter ISRAEL in U.S. passports as the place of birth for applicants born in the occupied territories.
f. Birthplace in Jerusalem: For a person born in Jerusalem, write JERUSALEM as the place of birth in the passport. Do not write Israel, Jordan or West Bank for a person born within the current municipal borders of Jerusalem. For applicants born before May 14, 1948 in a place that was within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, enter JERUSALEM as their place of birth. For persons born before May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, enter either PALESTINE or the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation. For persons born after May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, it is acceptable to enter the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation.

Let’s break it down. According to the U.S. government, if you were born in the Golan at any time, you were born in Syria. Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem besides are not part of Israel. If you were born in any of these places before 1948, your passport will say “Palestine” for the country (as in British Mandatory Palestine–not the fictitious country that millions of Arabs blather on about these days). After 1948, however, the U.S. government considers these lands to be still subject to negotiation, i.e. pending Arab sovereignty, i.e. stateless.

What does that mean for a kid like Bill, who was born at home in Efrat? His American passport, which recently arrived in our mailbox, says he was born in “Efrat.” Country? None. Not even Planet Earth. (The Cap’n says Efrat has been relegated to a Platonic Ideal.) Bill’s Israeli passport says he was born in Israel and is an Israeli national, but to the Americans, he’s not an Israeli. He’s an American, and a citizen of…Efrat. Remember the places in Europe that are city-states? Like San Marino? Monaco? Vatican City? Kind of like that. I guess. “The Zionist Republic of Efrat.” It’s got a ring to it. But it’s also clear to me that Bill will have to take his Israeli passport along with his American anywhere he travels, just to prove to the average passport clerk who has never heard of Efrat that he was born in a real place on this planet. (Or a chumash, to point out where the Bible mentions Efrat.)

I hear there have been periodic attempts to get the U.S. to change its policy on this matter, with no luck (obviously).

Weird.

So here’s my suggestion: That all Americans born in the southwestern territory acquired from Mexico in the 1848 Mexican War have “Mexico” as their country of birth. Or just the city (e.g. Albuquerque). And Floridians should have “Spain” as the country of their birth. And Sooners (people born in Oklahoma) should have “Indian Territory” printed on their birth certificates. And anyone born in Oregon, Idaho, or Washington, should be British subjects. That’s fair, I think. In fact, just check out this Dry Bones cartoon to tell you how the American government can put its money where its mouth is (thanks to Bayla for emailing me the cartoon):

Share this:

Like this:

Related

7 Responses

A lot of right wing Isrealis like to bring up America’s bloody past as way to deflect criticism of their own apartheid and ethnic cleansing practices. So I guess by that logic, you would be the kid that jumps off the bridge because your friends are doing it.

However, unless the government of Isreal would like to fund the establishment of the Native Americans’ nations then contribute billions and billions of dollars to the destruction of the homes of all other American people, the establishment of settlements outside those nations, weapons to fight the resistence of the rest of the nation, then the comparison does not apply.

If you don’t want the American government to hold you accountable or even criticize you for the systematic and institutionalized social, political, economic and cultural destruction of the Palestinian people, STOP TAKING OUR MONEY.

swandiver: A lot of left wingers like to bandy about words like “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “destruction” even though they don’t apply to Israel because they’re sure to get a rise out of people. Well, dry your eyes and go crack open a dictionary.

I think you missed the point of the cartoon. You think it’s absurd to demand that America return land that it conquered in aggressive wars and annexations for the express purpose of expansion? Of course it is. It’s done; move on. How much more absurd it is to expect that Israel will give up parts of its ancestral land acquired in a defensive war by hate-mongering, colonizing Arab neighbors. The Jews here are the natives; the Arabs are the squatters. That message gets lost in all the bleeding heart drivel put out by the international media, but it’s the truth.

Ultra-right-wing Israelis like Rabbi Meir Kahane and Moshe Feiglin have been calling for Israel to stop taking money from America, for longer than you have been calling for the same. So I second your motion.

Now that we’ve solved the money issue, the comparison is apt: if Israel is supposed to leave its territories, then America too must leave its. Practice what you preach, America.

Actually, I don’t think it’s all that absurd for America to sort through all of the broken treaties it’s made with Native American nations and negotiate a final settlement. And for sure I will never shy away from calling what the American government and settlers did to them exactly what it was: mass genocide in it’s purest form. Even over 200 years later.

And how quickly you call for people to “move on”. The modern state of Israel has only been in existence for 60 years. By that logic the Jewish people should have gotten over being kicked out by the Romans about 1900 years ago.

Make no bones about it, whether it’s called zionism, manifest destiny or the white man’s burden, it’s tactics, motivations and outcomes are all the same and it is all wrong. I couldn’t condemn Israel’s buddies in the apartheid government of South Africa before Mandela then say what’s happening in West Bank is okay. I can’t call for UN intervention in Darfur but say that what happened in Gaza this past December was justified. It would be hypocritical of me to call for US troops to leave Iraq and Afghanistan if I also don’t call for Israeli troops to leave the Golan Heights. If I am to be an advocate for peace and justice in one place, I have be an advocate for them everywhere.

I don’t know, maybe the Jewish people did stay out in the diaspora too long and picked up some nasty European habits when it comes to nation-building.

swandiver: You appear to be a newcomer to this blog, and to Middle East politics. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I’ve written, and I have willingly posted your comments which vehemently disagree with what I have written. But from this point on, until your comments indicate a greater awareness of the situation here (and fewer wild, inaccurate comparisons), I will be deleting your comments.

Like Swandiver, I’d LOVE for America to give all the land back to the Native Americans. Indeed, as per Swandiver, it WAS genocide, and it still is unjust. However, unfortunately, to return the land is simply not practical anymore. For all of the whites to leave North America is simply not tenable, for practical reasons. But theoretically, to do exactly this would be exactly just and right. I agree wholeheartedly with Swandiver here.

And just as I don’t expect the Native Americans to forget that they were expelled from their land, I don’t expect the Jews to forget they were expelled from theirs. As Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook used to ask, “After how many years does stolen property become the property of the thief?” Of course, stolen property is *always* stolen; it *always* belongs to the original owner, even 2000 years later. This is provided the original owner continually maintains his claim and never abandons it, and indeed, for 2000 years, the Jews continued to pray every day for the return to Zion and Jerusalem. So the Jews maintained our claim to Israel, and thus we retained this claim.

And luckily, unlike the impossibility of returning America to the Native Americans, it still is quite possible to return Israel to the Jews. The Jews in Israel outnumber the Arabs anyway, and so to make the Golan and West Bank and Gaza be owned by Israel, with Arab minority non-Jewish citizens, is quite reasonably possible. Were the Arabs the majority, we’d have a difficulty; to make Israel Jewish would require expelling the Arabs – just as making America be Native American would require expelling the whites – but thankfully, the Jews are the majority anyway, and so we do not have this difficulty.

We will further note: if one says the land of Israel belongs to the Palestinians, then one is implicitly granting ownership to conquerors. That is, the Arabs live in Israel only because they conquered it around 700 CE (AD). So granting Israel to them is condoning conquest. If so, why not condone Israel’s conquest in 1948 and 1967? Alternatively, if land belongs to the original inhabitants, irrespective of conquest, then Israel belongs to the Canaanites. But since there are no Canaanites around, Israel must revert to the Canaanites’ successor, viz. the Jews. Either way you cut it, Israel belongs to the Jews.

So it is quite reasonable, contra Swandiver, to expect American troops to live Iraq and to expect the UN to save the Darfurians, but at the same time condone Israel’s occupying the Golan Heights and the West Bank. The difference is simple: the Golan Heights and the West Bank are parts of Israel, whereas Iraq is not part of America. As for Darfur, the Arabs in Darfur are committing genocide against the blacks, whereas Israel is NOT committing genocide against anyone. (Actually, if anyone, it is the Arabs in Israel who are trying to commit genocide, even if they are not succeeding. In 1948, they called for all the Jews in Israel to be swept into the sea. Even if they failed to do so, their intent was genocide. In my book, murder and attempted murder are equally wicked, and equally liable, at least in the eyes of G-d, even if not in the courtroom. The Arabs are certainly guilty of attempted genocide.)